Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

AbusesToilets

vetinari wrote: »

Who is he, Rambo?
IF he had tased the cop and IF he had then turned to move towards the cop, the other cop would be justified in shooting him. It would be reasonable then to be worried about him grabbing the cop's gun. Neither of those things happened. Instead all you had was Brooks pointing a taser at the cop.

You realise a person can easily suffer fatal injuries from a punch? He did that, along with shooting the tazer at the officer. All of those are sufficient to escalate to the level of lethal force.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I agree with that argument, the trouble is they weren’t hit by the taser.

Because they shot him!

1800_Ladladlad

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Could you imagine a white cop on the ground with a firearm getting tased and the sh*t faced felon having full access of said firearm .......God only knows.

Judging by this thread it would be the cops own fault for being incompetent, Allowing himself to get beaten and tasered and then for good measure, the killing if any other people for allowing the Criminal to take his gun after being tasered

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You realise a person can easily suffer fatal injuries from a punch? He did that, along with shooting the tazer at the officer. All of those are sufficient to escalate to the level of lethal force.

So even a punch is rise for deadly force?

ronivek

ronivek wrote: »

He’s talking about an Irish case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_John_Ward

Not really sure of the relevance though.

You really can't see the relevance?

A police officer in a country that allows the holding and use of firearms for self defense, shot a man dead after being assaulted by that person who was armed with a taser. The poster above thinks this is unnecessary force and police incompetence as the criminal want armed with a firearm and hadn't YET shot the cop.

A farmer shot an unarmed trespasser dead with a legally held firearm in a country that doesn't allow firearms for self defense and was found not guilty by a jury.

I could also mention the lusk robbery as well.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You realise a person can easily suffer fatal injuries from a punch? He did that, along with shooting the tazer at the officer. All of those are sufficient to escalate to the level of lethal force.

So even a punch is rise for deadly force?

Bold Abdu

vetinari wrote: »

Who is he, Rambo?
IF he had tased the cop and IF he had then turned to move towards the cop, the other cop would be justified in shooting him. It would be reasonable then to be worried about him grabbing the cop's gun. Neither of those things happened. Instead all you had was Brooks pointing a taser at the cop.

In your scenario, he may have been moving back towards the cop to apologise for his reprehensible behaviour, so the shooting wouldn't be jutified in that case either.

joseywhales

Firstly, the alleged's character is of no concern when discussing the escalation procedure followed by the police in the situation.

The fact is that during the incident, the man showed no intent to initiate an attack on the officers. All of his actions were reactionary, he absolutely resisted and committed more than one crime while doing so. He wrestled and hit cops when they tried to cuff him, he fired and missed with a tazer when he was being chased down. He had justifiable fear of being at least tazered and possibly beaten, he may have even feared he might be murdered given recent events(and the last 400 years also). At no point did he indicate an intention to attack the police excluding defensive measures.

To me this does not justify shooting a man in the back who is fleeing.

He should have been followed, run down and threatened with lethal force, it's a drunk man. Had a warrant filed if he got away, been tracked down, had his home called on, friends and family inconvenienced, extracted using the usual methods.

His death was not necessary in my opinion. How I feel about him is irrelevant, this is about the procedures we have in place and whether they are being enforced(this time on cops themselves)

Tony EH

Whatever happened to firing warning shots?

This guy was hardly public enemy no. 1. He was a DUI that freaked and ran off. He was dumb to turn and fire the taser, but fucking hell, those cops couldn't have handled this situation in a worse manner.

Edgware

Tony EH wrote: »

Whatever happened to firing warning shots?

This guy was hardly public enemy no. 1. He was a DUI that freaked and ran off. He was dumb to turn and fire the taser, but fucking hell, those cops couldn't have handled this situation in a worse manner.

No such regulation as " firing warning shots" Maybe on Kojak

Tony EH

Edgware wrote: »

No such regulation as " firing warning shots" Maybe on Kojak

It happens in real life too kiddo.

The cops in this instance were disastrous. They were probably far too heavy handed in the first place. Lost a taser to a guy they were trying to arrest and ended up blowing a guy away unnecessarily.

Too trigger happy over there. Waaaay too trigger happy.

Danzy

Tony EH wrote: »

Whatever happened to firing warning shots?

This guy was hardly public enemy no. 1. He was a DUI that freaked and ran off. He was dumb to turn and fire the taser, but fucking hell, those cops couldn't have handled this situation in a worse manner.

What happened to warning shots?

TV shows changed.

When you point a weapon and on top of that fire, it's life and death.
If he had hit the officer he could have used the gun.

That is all the justification needed in Court.


The big winners from this are his family, who are free from a child torturing monster, a real psycho who may have killed one of them in time.

The African American community in Atlanta who can cross the street without a meth head drunk possibly ploughing through them.

The losers are the 2 officers who did their job and the wider public justice system in Atlanta.

The merit of his shooting was on his actions that night, not his previous ones or the wider benefits to society

mynamejeff

Tony EH wrote: »

It happens in real life too kiddo.

The cops in this instance were disastrous. They were probably far too heavy handed in the first place. Lost a taser to a guy they were trying to arrest and ended up blowing a guy away unnecessarily.

Too trigger happy over there. Waaaay too trigger happy.

a warning shot ? FFS ,

no it doesn't happen in real life

even in the context of boards that's poor

Tony EH

Warning shots aren't just on TV.

Tony EH

mynamejeff wrote: »

a warning shot ? FFS ,

no it doesn't happen in real life

Yes, they do...



Police officers may use warning shots from their sidearm in specific circumstances to de-escalate dangerous situations. Such a shot is typically only used late in the use of force continuum and analogous to the appliance of outright lethal force, as firing warning shots bring certain inherent risks.[3] A key consideration for the officer to make before firing a warning shot is that a shot fired horizontal or at the ground may ricochet off hard surfaces in unpredictable ways, whilst a shot in the air may travel far away and strike in an unpredictable place; both may cause danger to property and bystanders. In addition to these risks, a warning shot may have an escalating effect rather than a de-escalating one: if the target perceives the shot not as a warning but a deliberate but failed attempt on their life, they may return with force. Other officers in the area may too perceive the warning shot as a deliberate shot and act in response. Verbally communicating the officer's intent to the target and other officers mitigates the risk of de-escalation.



Whether warning shots should be used by law enforcement agencies is a point of debate. Proponents argue that the warning shots can prevent deaths and injuries in police shootings by allowing a final intermediate step and last chance at de-escalation before the application of deadly force in the use of force continuum. Research has shown that situations where warning shots were used had a largely de-escalating effect.[4] Terry Cunningham of the International Association of Chiefs of Police commented that warning shots give officers more wiggle room in the case of a threat, commenting "We're kind of entering into this new environment in use of force where everybody is trying to learn how to better de-escalate".[5] Opponents of warning shots point towards the inherent risks, as well as argue that the possibility of firing warning shots complicates the decision making process for police officers of whether to use deadly force. The situations that call for warning shots already warrant that lethal force be applied immediately.



Various agencies, such as the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and National Police of Paraguay specifically forbid the use of lethal firearms to fire warning shots.[6] Other agencies such as the Lower Saxony State Police, Dutch National Police, and the constabularies of England and Wales allow the use of warning shots in a cautious manner that does not endanger persons.

Edgware

Tony EH wrote: »

It happens in real life too kiddo.

The cops in this instance were disastrous. They were probably far too heavy handed in the first place. Lost a taser to a guy they were trying to arrest and ended up blowing a guy away unnecessarily.

Too trigger happy over there. Waaaay too trigger happy.

For general police procedure in the U.S. the use of a " warning shot" is not allowed. This incident is such a case.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

So even a punch is rise for deadly force?

It can be.

Nally wasn't being assaulted and he used deadly force

punisher5112

Warning shot could injure or kill someone else too....

What goes up must come down.

Tony EH

punisher5112 wrote: »

Warning shot could injure or kill someone else too....

It's a lot less likely than bullets in the back.

mynamejeff

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, they do...



Police officers may use warning shots from their sidearm in specific circumstances to de-escalate dangerous situations. Such a shot is typically only used late in the use of force continuum and analogous to the appliance of outright lethal force, as firing warning shots bring certain inherent risks.[3] A key consideration for the officer to make before firing a warning shot is that a shot fired horizontal or at the ground may ricochet off hard surfaces in unpredictable ways, whilst a shot in the air may travel far away and strike in an unpredictable place; both may cause danger to property and bystanders. In addition to these risks, a warning shot may have an escalating effect rather than a de-escalating one: if the target perceives the shot not as a warning but a deliberate but failed attempt on their life, they may return with force. Other officers in the area may too perceive the warning shot as a deliberate shot and act in response. Verbally communicating the officer's intent to the target and other officers mitigates the risk of de-escalation.



Whether warning shots should be used by law enforcement agencies is a point of debate. Proponents argue that the warning shots can prevent deaths and injuries in police shootings by allowing a final intermediate step and last chance at de-escalation before the application of deadly force in the use of force continuum. Research has shown that situations where warning shots were used had a largely de-escalating effect.[4] Terry Cunningham of the International Association of Chiefs of Police commented that warning shots give officers more wiggle room in the case of a threat, commenting "We're kind of entering into this new environment in use of force where everybody is trying to learn how to better de-escalate".[5] Opponents of warning shots point towards the inherent risks, as well as argue that the possibility of firing warning shots complicates the decision making process for police officers of whether to use deadly force. The situations that call for warning shots already warrant that lethal force be applied immediately.



Various agencies, such as the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and National Police of Paraguay specifically forbid the use of lethal firearms to fire warning shots.[6] Other agencies such as the Lower Saxony State Police, Dutch National Police, and the constabularies of England and Wales allow the use of warning shots in a cautious manner that does not endanger persons.

where did you get that , its just a load of wiki links

froog

to the cop defenders : at the very least do you admit these two cops absolutely bungled the whole interaction, allowed it to escalate, failed to restrain him, allowed the guy to escape when they had him outnumbered, allowed him to steal the taser, thereby creating the situation where the guy was shot dead when it could have been easily avoided if the cops did their job properly up to that point.

Tony EH

mynamejeff wrote: »

where did you get that , its just a load of wiki links

Strangely enough, on wiki.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, they do...



Police officers may use warning shots from their sidearm in specific circumstances to de-escalate dangerous situations. Such a shot is typically only used late in the use of force continuum and analogous to the appliance of outright lethal force, as firing warning shots bring certain inherent risks.[3] A key consideration for the officer to make before firing a warning shot is that a shot fired horizontal or at the ground may ricochet off hard surfaces in unpredictable ways, whilst a shot in the air may travel far away and strike in an unpredictable place; both may cause danger to property and bystanders. In addition to these risks, a warning shot may have an escalating effect rather than a de-escalating one: if the target perceives the shot not as a warning but a deliberate but failed attempt on their life, they may return with force. Other officers in the area may too perceive the warning shot as a deliberate shot and act in response. Verbally communicating the officer's intent to the target and other officers mitigates the risk of de-escalation.



Whether warning shots should be used by law enforcement agencies is a point of debate. Proponents argue that the warning shots can prevent deaths and injuries in police shootings by allowing a final intermediate step and last chance at de-escalation before the application of deadly force in the use of force continuum. Research has shown that situations where warning shots were used had a largely de-escalating effect.[4] Terry Cunningham of the International Association of Chiefs of Police commented that warning shots give officers more wiggle room in the case of a threat, commenting "We're kind of entering into this new environment in use of force where everybody is trying to learn how to better de-escalate".[5] Opponents of warning shots point towards the inherent risks, as well as argue that the possibility of firing warning shots complicates the decision making process for police officers of whether to use deadly force. The situations that call for warning shots already warrant that lethal force be applied immediately.



Various agencies, such as the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and National Police of Paraguay specifically forbid the use of lethal firearms to fire warning shots.[6] Other agencies such as the Lower Saxony State Police, Dutch National Police, and the constabularies of England and Wales allow the use of warning shots in a cautious manner that does not endanger persons.

I appreciate the detailed reply but I have to call shenanigans, you have included links to certain police forces but your links are only to wiki pages. This is not evidence supporting your claims regarding warning shots. Can you pay links that confirm the forces stance on warning shots?

In this set scenario, a warning shot would not be advisable and you won't find anyone with genuine knowledge that suggests otherwise.

statesaver

**** off Justin.

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1272904166617341953

mynamejeff

Tony EH wrote: »

Strangely enough, on wiki.

those paragraphs you posted don't seem to belong to any of the links you posted.

does it relate to this case ? country state city ?

froog

froog wrote: »

to the cop defenders : at the very least do you admit these two cops absolutely bungled the whole interaction, allowed it to escalate, failed to restrain him, allowed the guy to escape when they had him outnumbered, allowed him to steal the taser, thereby creating the situation where the guy was shot dead when it could have been easily avoided if the cops did their job properly up to that point.

Jesus wept. So what part are you not blaming on the police?

Women with short skirts equally to blame when someone decides to commit a Criminal act?

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

It's a lot less likely than bullets in the back.

Not too the innocent party that's shot in the back by a warning shot

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The thing that’s important in that scentence is the word IF.
Lethal force isn’t sanctioned in hypothetical what IF situations, it’s clear cut when it can be used. Imminent threat to life.

Absolutely 100% incorrect.

mynamejeff

froog wrote: »

to the cop defenders : at the very least do you admit these two cops absolutely bungled the whole interaction, allowed it to escalate, failed to restrain him, allowed the guy to escape when they had him outnumbered, allowed him to steal the taser, thereby creating the situation where the guy was shot dead when it could have been easily avoided if the cops did their job properly up to that point.

if he wasn't drunk or what ever and driving falling asleep in a drive thru fighting the cops stealing the tazer and firing it at the cops and trying to run away he would be alive too .


he would however likely be back in jail where it seems he should have been

people can just be on the side of the facts too you know

Tony EH

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I appreciate the detailed reply but I have to call shenanigans, you have included links to certain police forces but your links are only to wiki pages. This is not evidence supporting your claims regarding warning shots. Can you pay links that confirm the forces stance on warning shots?

In this set scenario, a warning shot would not be advisable and you won't find anyone with genuine knowledge that suggests otherwise.

No 2shenanigans" here at all. I asked what happened to warning shots and got a couple of smug replies.

The text I posted is off the wiki page on warning shots.

They happen. Simply saying it's just something that goes on on tele is not true.

As far as I know, in Florida, even a citizen can fire a warning shot if they feel they are under threat.